As explained by Murray Rothbard in “America’s Two Just Wars: 1775 and 1861″ (in John Denson, ed., The Costs of War, Transaction Publishers, 1997, p. 128):

The North, in particular the North’s driving force, the “Yankees” – that ethnocultural group who either lived in New England or migrated from there to upstate New York, northern and eastern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois – had been swept by a new form of Protestantism. This was a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism driven by a fervent “postmillennialism” which held that, as a precondition for the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.

To the Yankees, their “kingdom” was to be a “perfect society” cleansed of sin, the principal causes of which were slavery, alcohol, and Catholicism. Furthermore, “government is God’s major instrument of salvation,” Rothbard wrote. This is why the Yankees never seriously considered ending Southern slavery how THEY had ended it in their own states – peacefully through some kind of compensated emancipation. They were not so concerned about the welfare of the poor slaves. Indeed, even Tocqueville noticed that “the problem of race,” as he phrased it, was worse in the North than it was in the South. Instead, as Rothbard continues:

The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world. The Yankee fanatics were veritable Pattersonian humanitarians with the guillotine: the Anabaptists, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, of their era.

This analysis of the Puritans also reflects David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed(1989) and Kevin Phillips’ The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America(1999), and I used it in trying the fathom the depths of WASP pathology (e.g., here; academic version). The fact is that all of the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique were fundamentally aimed at some kind of moral perfection — exactly the weak spot of WASP America. DiLorenzo points out that the neocons have used this weapon in order to rationalize wars (KM: on behalf of Israel) but framed as great moral crusades: “The neocon establishment, which is influential in both major political parties, believes in just the opposite: ‘entangling alliances’ and endless military interventionism with as many nations as possible, all in the name of some undefinable Great Moral Cause, in the tradition of Dishonest Abe.”

Charles Krauthammer is a perfect example of an American Jewish intellectual who cynically exploits the tendency among Whites for moral idealism and universalism in order to advance his narrow ethnic intererts. Here he is pushing war against the entire Muslim world:

Beyond power. Beyond interest. Beyond interest defined as power. That is the credo of democratic globalism. Which explains its political appeal: America is a nation uniquely built not on blood, race or consanguinity, but on a proposition—to which its sacred honor has been pledged for two centuries…. Today, post-9/11, we find ourselves in an…existential struggle but with a different enemy: not Soviet communism, but Arab-Islamic totalitarianism, both secular and religious. … At some point, you have to implant something, something organic and self-developing. And that something is democracy. (Democratic Realism)

Here is U.S. District Court of Appeals Judge Simon Rifkind testifying in 1951 on behalf of pretty much the entire organized Jewish community on how America should approach immigration:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [!] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

Rifkind, whose remarks were quite famous at the time, defines Americanism in moral terms as implying tolerance and positive feelings toward others. Like Krauthammer, the national interest of the United States is not the critical issue. We should pursue Rifkind’s multi-racial utopia without concern for economic benefits to the US:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought. (p. 570) [see Culture of Critique, Chap. 7, pp. 278-279.]

DiLorenzo points out that Puritan publicists created the mythic Abe Lincoln out of thin air, and those who defied the duty to deify Lincoln did so at their peril–quite reminiscent of what happens to people who contravene the current standards of political correctness.

Jews are remarkably immune to moral crusades when it comes to Israel. Then it’s ethnic politics with a vengeance, and lofty ideals about multi-racial immigration are non-starters. The New England WASPs seem particularly disposed to such behavior, although other Whites seem predisposed as well. “Ideas worth fighting for,” as Justice John Paul Stevens had it. No non-White group seems inclined in this direction.

In my view, this proclivity stems ultimately from Western individualism as an ethnic trait: In individualist societies where relatedness beyond the immediate family is not important, ideas with great emotional appeal have a group-binding function, resulting in cohesive, emotionally motivated ingroups willing to mete out punishment to outgroups defined not on the basis of kinship but on the basis of their beliefs. On the other hand, in collectivist societies like Judaism cohesion is ultimately a matter of kinship relatedness, and ingroups and outgroups are defined ethnically.

Germans formed idealistic images of Jews during the Enlightenment when others had more realistic and negative views. Jews are realists, accepting the world as it is and advancing their interests based on their understanding of this reality. Judaism is characterized by particularlst morality (Is it good for the Jews?). Germans, on the other hand, tend to have idealized images of themselves and others — to believe that the human mind can construct reality based on ideals that can then shape behavior. They are predisposed to moral universalism — moral rules apply to everyone and are not dependent on whether it benefits the ingroup.

In large part the problem confronting Whites stems from our psychology of moralistic self-punishment exemplified at the extreme by the Puritans and their intellectual descendants, but also apparent in a great many other Whites. As Fischer noted, “New England … had the lowest relative rates of private crime (murder, theft, mayhem), but the highest rates of public violence—’the burning of rebellious servants, the maiming of political dissenters, the hanging of Quakers, the execution of witches’” (p. 189). These people will eagerly use government against the politically incorrect, morally reprobate ne’er-do-wells in their midst.

The best strategy for a collectivist group like the Jews for destroying Europeans therefore is to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy. A major theme of [The Culture of Critique] is that this is exactly what Jewish intellectual movements have done. They have presented Judaism as morally superior to European civilization and European civilization as morally bankrupt and the proper target of altruistic punishment. The consequence is that once Europeans are convinced of their own moral depravity, they will destroy their own people in a fit of altruistic punishment. The general dismantling of the culture of the West and eventually its demise as anything resembling an ethnic entity will occur as a result of a moral onslaught triggering a paroxysm of altruistic punishment. Thus the intense effort among Jewish intellectuals to continue the ideology of the moral superiority of Judaism and its role as undeserving historical victim while at the same time continuing the onslaught on the moral legitimacy of the West. (see here)

The main difference between the Puritan New Jerusalem and the present multicultural one is that the latter will lead to the demise of the very White people who are the mainstays of the current multicultural Zeitgeist. Unlike the Puritan New Jerusalem, the multicultural New Jerusalem will not be controlled by people like themselves because the non-White ethnic actors will act on the basis of narrow ethnic interest, not high principle. The ultimate irony is that without altruistic Whites willing to be morally outraged by violations of multicultural ideals, the multicultural New Jerusalem is likely to revert to a Darwinian struggle for survival among the remnants. But the high-minded descendants of the Puritans won’t be around to witness it.

84 Comments to "Thomas DiLorenzo on Puritan Moral Fervor"

That last paragraph especially is one of the most important things ever written. It encapsulates the entire moral dilemma of the last couple centuries and the yawning chasm of the destruction of all we hold dear in the future. Absolutely excellent.

The irony is illustrated well that our high ideals are manipulated today to bring about our own demise. Our own suicide. This is why Jews and our people cannot live together, why we do not get along. We need ideals based on truth, on universal principles from objective truths about our world, not contrived moral directives from those who hate us and only care about their own power and interests.

A key tenet to KM’s theory is the way Jewish intellectuals can co-opt both whites, blacks and browns. In that regard a ‘white only’ response to this will never work. Whites must find mechanisms to co-opt blacks and browns into the sphere of white, christian influence. My concern is that wasps don’t have what it takes to achieve this i.e. their protestanism is philosophically unreliable. How can such an unreliable group attract browns, blacks and fellow whites, then take on the Jewish intelligentsia with “reason” if said group defines itself by its hatred of Catholicism? The project will fail just as the Nazis did. Evelyn Waugh was asked why he became a Catholic? His response was, “because it is true”. Truth remains our most powerful weapon in these dicussions and as Benedict XVI stated in his first encyclical, truth, reason and love are all synonyms – they all mean God.

Captain, even with ethnic or racial homogeneity there are numerous and diverse cultures, so there’s no easy answers. But such homogeneity as you mention is the very least we can aim for. Cultural homogeneity is impossible to attain unless you are a stone-age tribe.

“And I forget how one is to be a member of the race from which “all other goods flow” and not feel “of superior breeding”.”

In your earnestness to score rhetorical points you succeeded only in making a hare-brained quip.

Ethnic diversity results in social fragmentation and the diminishment of social capital. Ethnic homogeneity is imperative for the life of a congenial society. The need to preserve the biological quality of our people as against, say, negroes – and the squalor and disorder which flows from their biology – as being key for the realization of a congenial society goes without saying.

Also, as I’m sure you are unaware, when one speaks of an individual as being “ill-bred” one does not typically mean that they are of genetically defective stock but lacking in a genteel upbringing. My “of superior breeding” remark was an allusion to that figure of speech; it was metaphorical.

“seeing as how nobody is directly stopping whites from having children,”

The total fertility rate for White Americans is 1.9, not substantially below the 2.1 needed to maintain population numbers in a modern industrial-technological society. White Americans ARE having children, it is just that they cannot realistically be expected to compete with the prodigious fertility of Third World immigrants especially as immigration’s flood gates remain open. We are being drowned in the bottomless seas of the Third World. This is why racially exclusive living space is so essential as Frank Salter makes clear: (i) it acts as a buffer against the vicissitudes of fertility rates as relates to the percentage of the population a given people will enjoy as a result of said – no matter the birth rate, their people will still make up 100% of the racial composition of that territory; (ii) it acts as a barrier against miscegenation – if there are no racial Others present they cannot be bred with.

“The Puritans, by the way, fell out of favor in England with Restoration, etc, and died a natural death, but in the U.S. with no Catholic tradition, it survived to torment us now with tendencies of fanatic belief in Heaven on Earth, Jews, Perfectability, and the like.”

This is a good observation, Joe. I think the factional nature of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) has been a strength, in a way, acting as a system of checks and balances. Abuses by any church are minimized when there’s another church to defect to (or at least act as an opposing view.) A little bit of competition. Witch burnings usually happen when there’s only one church.

How far can a man go in the church? He can become Pope, having minimal sway over protestants, or he can become Billy Graham, having even less sway over Catholics. But what about Judaism? He can become Netanyahu (since religion and state are inseparable) and control all jews. The checks and balances come from the outside in the form of violent purges every few generations.

Hey Cap’mClueless, seeing as how nobody is directly stopping whites from having children, securing the genetic continuity of those of European descent is all about dreamy pretensions. What a man can perceive he can achieve. We’ve had our dreams stolen, not our sperm. And I forget how one is to be a member of the race from which “all other goods flow” and not feel “of superior breeding”.

But congrats for pulling the anti-Semitism card. That has worked wonders for our people. Nothing gives white folks a boner like being called an anti-semite. Clearly you have an iron grip on the issues. Carry on.

In case it is a mystery – and disturbingly it appears to be for many that comment here – this entire enterprise is about securing the genetic continuity of those of European descent and very little else. Which is only fitting as ultimately all other goods flow from that. This is not about giving vent to one’s dreamy, superficial pretensions and stroking one’s vanity in the context of a generalized opposition to Jewry in contrast to which one can feel of superior breeding. We oppose Jews because they stand opposed to – and wield their power accordingly – the necessary conditions we need for our people’s genetic survival. Anything else I’m afraid really can be justly called “anti-Semitism”.

You have managed to matriculate from spouting drivel to unhinged drivel. Congrats. I knew you had it in you.

Pierre de Craon muses in his accustomed detached fashion:

“only a soulless fool would wish to exchange our present rulers for a baker’s dozen or so pagan barbarians, even were they to be of unimpeachably “White” stock (and what a delightfully “post-Christian” term that is, too).”

“White” means nothing but of unalloyed European descent. And only a fool would entertain the prospect of foregoing the acquisition of exclusive living space for our race in which total cultural renewal, and the foregoing of mongrelization and hence the avoidance of a true descent into barbarism, would be the result achieved in order to comfort himself against what he perceives as a world view which is too thoroughgoingly materialistic for his petty tastes.

Wake up.

Helvena chimes in:

“Race is organic, it will change and that isn’t bad. What we have lost is our sense of rootedness,”

What you mean is that you are willing to accept some degree of mongrelization because that’s “organic”. A word which you apparently associate with inevitability, Mother Nature’s Will, and all the ditsy, romantic nebulosity that the “rootedness” of a greeting card or a warm summers breeze connotes to you. Fine as things go, but with the stakes so high, the very being of our people at stake (if we are mongrelized we will no longer be ourselves), purely contemptible drivel. There is no reason – none – that we cannot two hundred years hence be essentially the same people we were a thousand years ago, but for that to be the case we will need racially exclusive territory. Exclusive territory being the guarantor of genetic continuity as Salter avers.

But really we shouldn’t allow our culture to raise up a bunch of blithering idiot liberals. I should have been brought out back and beaten for my political beliefs in college. Why the hell didn’t I know any better? I reckon because I wasn’t supposed to. It really is disgusting what our kids learn in Government schools, universities and the media. It’s a full-on brainwashing, no doubt. NO CRITICAL THINKING ALLOWED! It was only my Catholic upbringing that saved me from total annihilation. I always had a sneaking suspicion that something wasn’t right.

the dropped post was addressed to Severus. first, the left has lots of young (fools) and the right has mostly older and wiser types. Second, the reason many rightists will not come out is the valid threat of being beaten or killed by the maniacs on the Left. I know the left inside out because I wuz there for quite a while, espec when the left was sora pure, in the 60s. It got worse and worse as the commie jews and White self-haters tookk over and the Black Panthers, etc, and the femi-commies, and every fuc-up misfit with a grudge against normalcy came to discover his or her Human Right.

Without going into it any more, the Left is full of killers, commies, haters, B students, druggies and sex-crazed libertines….all the result of Heaven on Earth pipe dreams and personal failure, resentment of one’s betters, and various romances of blacks and browns.

I also know the left because I once, in a very attentuated version , shared the utopian dreams of the Left. I grew up when I realized that most people were not as high-minded as myself and that I was a typical generous hearted White who had been led astray by my genes and the jews.

Reading the Transcendentalists that Jones offers up in his chapter on Emancipation, I am reminded of just how fanatic the Gnostic heresy of a little or a lot of God in every man/woman…is. New Age hippies and Big Box churches preach this heresy. Narcissism is thereby fostered. Individualism of the worst sort is thereby fostered. “I want World Peace..Now!” is thereby fostered. Delusions of Grandeur are fostered. And, yes, “Heaven on Earth” always includes sexual freedom, of course, adolescent sex without babies. Heaven is one long orgasm to these fools. History does not count, only what I…I,do you hear? what I say. I am God, I am You, and We are Alltogether!

Jones remarks that it was only Nathaniel Hawthorne who demurred from the total Transcendentalist romance with Abollition. This Transcendental trance also puts a different light on Queequeg, the Noble Savage, in Melville’s Moby Dick.

You cannot argue that Moby Dick is a Liberal Fantasy, but Queequeg arguably is a character that counterpoints Captain Ahab and his Ahabism. OT again and again.

Oh yeah, a Judaized U.S? “Abraham”….Lincoln, the Civil War songs of Righteousness, the “evil” Southerners condemned by Liberals from New England who did not have to live with blacks or the consequences of total Revolution.? The Great Decider’s moral crusade in Arabia, the Jews snickering behind him. Judaization, religious and secular. Joe

KM’s introduction of Muray Rothbard’s and others’ quotes about Puritan fanaticism and Adventism is then compared to White Individualism which is rooted in many thousands of years of special conditions in the North. Those conditions were no scarcity of land, or, game, and the consequent necessity of cooperation between small hunting/gathering groups. This led to traits of trust/openness to strangers developing as opposed to pronounced distrust of outsiders.

So, here we are today with Surplus Trust of Outsiders, and a strong genetic tendency to deploy our special pronounced trait of Altruism against ourselves as Whites. Probably this also encourages Universalism. OK

Puritanism was heavily judaized by the Protestant Return to the Old Testament. That was so because it was the only text around with which to challenge the Catholic Church. The printing press had only recently been revolutionized by the White guy, Guttenburg, (and that technology, along with all the other White inventions that followed have been largely taken over by Jews, like TV and Film.) So, books by the millions were turned out by 1500, including of course Bibles.

Adventism, or the Second Coming of Christ was a heresy, and still is a heresy for the Catholic Church. Just how that heresy was justified is not clear, but it was.

E. Michael Jones, with his Jewish Revolutionary Spirit traces a 500 plus year history of what he calls judaization of Protestant churches, and even sees the Catholic Church as partially succumbing to the Jews.

In brief, OT, Talmud, Zohar, preach revolution, or “Heaven on Earth” and revolution as the means to attain it, per Jones. Christianity preaches acceptance, that Christ came and brought fulfillment of the Laws of OT by spiritualizing Christians. This means that one does not follow blindly some rabbi or priest, but develops one’s personality/sensibility to overcome naricissism and other irrational drives. (I put a psychological twist on this as an agnostic, I appreciate much of Christian instruction.) Christ redeemed the world and us if we will receive the holy spirit.

Jews wait for a military Messiah who will kill their myriad enemies. They have been waiting a long time and many false Messiahs have come and gone. They now think that Jews themselves are the Messiah, the chutzpah of all chutzpahs
Jews are warriors for G-d, or Revolution per 19th C and 1917. They hate Christians and have been subverting them forever.

Getting back to Puritans, they were the most judaized of the Protestant sects. Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, Abollitionism and , combined with the Enlightenment which was itself judaized per Jones, they have created modern LIberalism which thinks it can create Heaven on Earth. This Liberalism began in the U.S. in New England in the early 19th C. and has continued the war on Christian/Catholic sobriety. New Jerusalems, New World Order, New Man, New Age, new, new , new. It is all Jewish Bunk, but also dovetails with the White Altruistic genome. Quite a cocktail.

The nutshell version of Jones, is that the Revolutionary Spirit which is with us today, comes from Jewish subversion in various guises. The Puritans, by the way, fell out of favor in England with Restoration, etc, and died a natural death, but in the U.S. with no Catholic tradition, it survived to torment us now with tendencies of fanatic belief in Heaven on Earth, Jews, Perfectability, and the like.

Jones’ The Revolutionary Spirit is must reading in my opinion. His various strange charges of conspiratorial revenge against Catholics can be overlooked because his scholarship is immense, especially on the theme of judaized Christianity.

Because the U.S. is a Christian country , with many millions of relatively fundamentalist Adventists, the Jews get a pass just about at every turn. We are not going to turn this around in a decade or two. It is Very important to come to terms with Jones, even if he is wrong here and there, he appears to me to be right about the general character of our religious history.

You may not care about that history, but it cares about you.

Jewish Rev Spirit can be purchased from Jones’ website, Culture Wars. It is a book that can stand alongside KM’s Culture of Critique, etc. It is $48, and about 1100 hundred pages. money’s worth. Amazon may still be scalping on his book to suppress it..

In summary, there is not contradiction between Jones and KM. Genes are first, but culture continues the genetic stamp. We Whites are operating with a genome that is obsolete for today’s world of savages who ask to use the phone, come in after we invite them in, and kill us. It is our mortal Trust of Others. who have never developed Trust amongst themselves.

We are apparently starting to awaken with Arizona Fever, and Tax Revolt, better known as Enough Already! with the Blacks and Browns, and their LIberal Fools. Joe Webb

” An estimated 70% of America’s workforce in the future will be women.”

Not if we go back to native borns doing the work currently performed by illegal/legal immigrants (fruit picking, ditch digging, meat packing, etc.) Child rearing will start looking pretty good by comparison.

Serverus you are ahead of the game and your thinking is clearer than most. Race is organic, it will change and that isn’t bad. What we have lost is our sense of rootedness, of who and what we are. Defining ourselves in phenotype is an attempt to find that base but it is an inadequate. We must rebuild our culture but we can’t do that until we understand how we got to this point in the first place…what went wrong. You seem to me to be a person who doesn’t accept the easy (& false) answers. You are a leader. Take all criticism as an intellectual challenge and grow stronger.

@Pierre de Craon, it’s not terribly manly to blame the woman. If men want women to follow then men must lead.

“The most cunning, most evil, and most destructive thing that our Jewish masters have convinced us to do is replace sexual discipline with sexual license.”

Bingo. Bingo. Bingo.

More than anything else we can do to save ourselves (e.g. close the borders, eliminate the fed, end government education, etc.), ending legal abortion is the one thing that would give us all a giant leap into the future. Why? Because it would mean taking our balls back, allowing us to retake our culture and thereby make everything else possible.

It’s the third rail of politics anymore, the undiscussible element. It almost causes more alarm than the Jewish Question at this point. Yes, at the most fundamental level we’ve sold our birthright for an easy lay. It’s that simple, that profound, and completely true.

And more than likely we will never get that genie back in the bottle. And that is the true crucible.

I hope that you won’t let the open hostility and vilification in the air here get you down or, worse, tempt you to respond in kind. It is clear that you are young–you didn’t have to ‘fess up to that (it wasn’t particularly hard to figure out!), but it does you credit to have done so. Your youth, alas, is a problem that will solve itself in the blink of an eye.

You might consider taking to heart the cleverest and perhaps aptest thing that the humorist Dave Barry ever wrote: “You’re only young once, but you can be immature forever.” Not a few of your decriers seem already to have embraced the latter half of Barry’s dictum, haven’t they?

I can’t say I agree with more than about a quarter of what you say, but it’s plain that you are keeping your eyes and ears open–and not merely for show. Nowadays, what more can an old fart ask? I think that in time you will come to see that the Left’s answers to human and societal problems are all, at bottom, pharisaical contrivances, but pace your many critics, shouting you down now won’t advance that realization by even a millisecond; quite the contrary, in fact.

Your understanding (if I read you aright) that the solution to the alien invasion this country has been subjected to is not mass murder or mass imprisonment or some comparable and equally dystopian dream has not met with applause, has it? So what. What someone else snidely called your “motley collection of ostensibly benign assertions” may lack something in intellectual rigor, but only a soulless fool would wish to exchange our present rulers for a baker’s dozen or so pagan barbarians, even were they to be of unimpeachably “White” stock (and what a delightfully “post-Christian” term that is, too).

As Professor MacDonald has helped me and, I suspect, a good many other people see, the prime nonmonetary key to the great success of the Jews in the West has been their ability to get white Christians and (ugh) post-Christians to confuse the examination of conscience, one of their greatest moral and intellectual strengths, with a never-ending scrupulosity. (One might analogize these two functions with, respectively, normal peristalsis and dysentery, the latter being a diseased form of the former wherein the purging process doesn’t stop or slow down as it’s supposed to.) It seems to me that the trick you are trying to turn is the old one of tossing out the bathwater while keeping hold of the baby. You seem to have noticed that that ain’t as easy as it looks; to this observer at least, many of your decriers can’t tell one from the other and wouldn’t give a damn if they could.

A footnote. Talking of babies reminds me that few if any of those with a white consciousness–whether they post here or elsewhere; whether they are religious (Catholic or Protestant, that is), indifferent to religion, or openly hostile to it; and whether they relate to the ethnonational cause as thinkers, doers, watchers, or planners–ever get worked up about the fact that there is not a single society in the world where white people are having families at the replacement level. The most cunning, most evil, and most destructive thing that our Jewish masters have convinced us to do is replace sexual discipline with sexual license. Once white women became convinced (rightly or, more often, wrongly) that the answer to the question “But will you respect me in the morning?” was yes, the white death warrant was effectively signed. Just as in the modern American justice system a death sentence is subject to a decade’s worth or more of appeals and postponements, so too is it with the death of the white race. In this instance, however, you, Severus, and other men your age can get the sentence not just deferred but reversed.

Not that that will be easy. But you already know that, I think. Please keep watching, listening, and thinking. There is much truth in the old saw that God gave us two eyes, two ears, and one mouth because He wished us to use those organs in precisely that two-to-one ratio.

Your motley collection of ostensibly benign assertions accompanied by the hint of potential support you would give us if only we would but satisfy your demands which are extraneous, and in fact in many cases inimical to, securing the genetic continuity of the White race do not succeed in concealing your essential hostility to the latter. We here do not value any of what you suggest as more important or desirable than securing the existence of our people. What you at least profess to be your valued particularisms are at best to us, and can only ever be, means to the end of life for our people; and not the other way round.

“Purebloods”? Do you think we are so stupid as to accept the mongrelization of our people merely to accommodate you and hence garner your support, which in the end is no support at all in that it betrays our fundamental objective? LOL! You really are dumber than shit, aren’t you?

If Americans will not wash dishes for minimum wage, that means businesses need to pay more than minimum wage. Pay what it takes to get people to do the work if you want it done — same as any other employment (for example, automobile repair). That is standard economic theory.

Re labour shortages, foreign workers, etc: this all hinges I guess on the existence (or not) of some sort of pure “capitalism”. To me, capitalism means making as much money as you can no matter what the long- or short-term consequences to anybody else. It exists with the blessing of the government, doesn’t it?

Ideally, we need a dictator who is going to tell us that those dishes you refer to, Severus, will remain unwashed and the fruit trees will remain unpicked until such time as white citizens step up to the plate, minimum wage or not. One could argue that minimum wage is the problem.

“….European traits such as rugged individualism, high-investment parenting, and a propensity for out-group altruism, to name just a few, served us pretty well as we conquered Ice Age Europe, then the world itself, wouldn’t you agree? They are not ‘defective’ nor ’self-destructive’, nor even ‘unfit’…”

I agree, Matthias. You’re right. In and of themselves, those traits did serve us well. When crawling out the small basement window of a burning house, however, a broad shouldered man will start to curse himself. His memory suddenly becomes very short, it seems.

There is no such thing as a labor shortage. The shortage is of businesses willing to pay a market clearing wage. If the pay is sufficent, there will be Americans willing to take jobs doing whatever. If a business to too inefficient to pay market clearing wages, it goes out of business. That is standard economic theory.

Not every observation I make, caustic or otherwise, is intended to “advance the white cause.” Al Sharpton is an idiot. Whether he inherited his lack of intelligence or suffered some sort of head trauma is of no concern to me. Oh, and I’m guessing about 87.

From my viewpoint, this article is a welcome offering from Kevin MacDonald. It’s an acknowledgement that the demise of our race may not be so much a result of cultural murder, but assisted suicide. Let blacks be the culture of externalized blame…they’re GOOD at it. We aren’t. (Hitler as an example.)

Many people have commented or implied that our self-destructive moral high mindedness may be genetic. Could be. Or is it just a general tendency towards self criticism that’s in our blood? Remember, democracy, the Magna Carta and the protestant reformation (which was started by self critical Catholics, NOT protestants) are all examples/outcomes of this self criticism. Not always a negative thing.

Many jews definitely HAVE encouraged and capitalized upon this tendency, as our absurdly skewed and unconditional support of Israel proves. The world needs to know how destructive zionism and it’s elements in the U.S. are, and those jews need to be confronted and controlled, but we shouldn’t let ourselves become a bunch of high IQ versions of Al Sharpton in the process.

Re foreign workers. If we want to have a truly white, stable society, it has to be maintained by ourselves. If there is work that “requires” foreign workers, then it’s not our nation anymore. In such a case we would just have to restructure work to use the labour that we have on hand, i.e., our own. If restructuring won’t do it, then we have to redesign, and live our lives in a different way. But we must keep foreigners out no matter what the temporary discomfort to ourselves.

Phil asks, “Is Brother Nathaneal Kapner a reformed Jew?” The Brother is an ordained Orthodox Christian who grew up in a Jewish household and in Jewish culture. Whether his parents were reformeed or otherwise, I do not know,

Someday, So greed is a “realist” justification for war but the tangible benefits of avoiding war are not? Give me a break, man. Greed and desire for gain is as spiritually grounded (or ungrounded, as it were) as selflessness. “Realist.” Good Lord what a fantasy. Yes, we’re all rats in a maze looking for the most cheese. No, there’s no spiritual framework or consequence to such an outlook. Shit, Iraq DISPROVES your and the shill Mearsheimer’s thesis. States are black boxes or they’re not. Or are they only black boxes sometimes? Are they black boxes during odd numbered years and not black boxes during even numbered years? Or are they black boxes when Mearshitter says they are and not black boxes when he says they aren’t? Untethered academia. Gotta love it.

Phil, thinks “if the malevolent Israel lobby were all powerful, Iran would already have been attacked” but the army chiefs would have raised hell if Bush or Obama had started anything while Iraq and Afghanistan were still full on. I expect the Joint Chiefs will be reluctant to declare the worst is over in Afganisrtan because they know that little war is a good excuse for not attacking Iran. However, make no mistake it is already as good as attacked, after Obama is reelected – claiming victory in Afghanistan – he will order a massive airstrike on Iran

As an additional point, the Israel lobby tried to get Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, but he was not dumb enough to do it. As a result of none-too-smart George W. Bush’s invasion, Iraq foreseeably wound up falling right into Iran’s lap.

It really seemed to bug Bush and Cheney — and the Israel lobby knew and took advantage of it — that Iraqi oil was off the table for the U.S. while Saddam was in power. For Bush and Cheney, it was not simply the economics of oil, but oil as a strategic weapon that should be dominated by the U.S. The Israel lobby swung into action and put on a full-court press for war.

Interestingly enough, polling showed Jews were more skeptical toward the war than the general U.S. population. But the powerful Jewish organizations are not run by ordinary Jews.

I don’t find this article by Hoste convincing. It’s argument by innuendo, and we really have no idea what the oil companies were lobbying for behind closed doors. For all we know, the oil companies could have endorsed the sanctions, or been non-commital. Or, it’s also possible they could have gone along with the sanctions even if they believed them hurtful to their own interests in the short term, but only on the condition that they received support for something else that they considered even more valuable in exchange. (Just speculating here, but that something might be abandoning the idea of a windfall profits tax, which seems to have been allowed to fade away, at least temporarily.)

Despite this, according to Hoste, it’s supposed to be “obvious” that oil companies were lobbying intensively against sanctions because they are known to have some existing dealings with Iran, and the sanctions would put an end to those dealings. That’s what he insinuates. But think about that for a moment and you will see that’s a non sequitur. Just because they are currently making profits from their dealings with Iran doesn’t mean they wouldn’t make even more profit from the imposition of sanctions (which would have the probable effect of tightening supply and raising the price of oil), and more profit still if Iran is subjugated via war. Yes, it’s true that the war would be an enormous drain on the public treasury, but it should come as no surprise that that’s hardly a concern for them.

The argument that oil companies would prefer to trade with whoever is in power, and hence have no desire to see war in that part of the world and can be expected to lobby against it is pretty naive, and also a non sequitur in the same mold as Hoste’s, above. We do know to a certainty that oil companies and defense industries generally (i.e., the military-industrial complex) have been experiencing record profits since the invasions. Further, anything that raises the price of oil will raise their profits, as they are doubtless aware. If the price of oil on the world market doubles or triples, then their profits double or triple. That’s what’s in fact happened, and if anything is “obvious”, it’s that they would like to see it continue to happen.

Were you a plant, actually working against us? Were you a young person run away with enthusiasm? Were you simply a person who didn’t define enough some of their terms and so left open some bad interpretations?

Italics are what you wrote.

I propose a fluid-border ethnostate concept wherein men and women of each race in the US will have their own ethnostate within these United Ethnostates, but that fluidity would exist between the borders of these states as far as work, travel, ideas, and trade are concerned (sorta like the EU, but not Pureblood-run and there will be ZERO immigration; a total moratorium on ALL outside immigration)
1. Open borders is the physical thing killing my people (whites). Given the nature of males and females in the same area, they intermix and have kids. Your formula is death for the genetic basis of my people, and hence death for my people.

finance Capitalism (the ultimate disease of the world at this point)
Some parts of capitalism are a huge problem for our struggle. But likely not the ultimate disease. (As an interesting aside, conservatives who got domination of the Texas school board required all textbooks to use term “free enterprise” in place of “capitalism”, which some assert was a term created by Marx.)

pureblood supremacists
What is all this hostility toward “pureblood supremacists” when you haven’t said anything about what you mean by the term? For one thing, the usual meaning of pureblood has overlap with any situation where a people has been able to maintain their people-hood over a period of time.

DiversityInc magazine
You have lots of demoralizing statistics from the magazine. Then you take the statistics in the direction of passive acceptance – we have no choice but “to accept these statistics.” But these future statistical projections are based on formulas and especially based on the presumption that the legal etc situation continues as it is today. Sometimes its good to whip people up into worry, for the sake of their own survival. Sometimes its bad if it just accomplishes demoralization and acceptance of suicide. Your statistics seem to encourage the reader to passively accept the current legal border etc situation.

“Internal political systems are irrelevant. States are black boxes which decide for war according to the dictates of realism while any moralizing rationales which come subsequently are just spin.”

This pile of steaming crap does not deserve a response, but out of charity I feel I need to point out, yet again, that this is military-industrial complex hogwash that is in itself a framework of morality used to justify unjustifiable behavior. The “dictates of realism” can be used to justify proactively or retroactively absolutely any behavior whatsoever, by a state or an individual. It’s a cop out and it’s crap. My God man, just call yourself a Jew and get it over with.

And in the Jew-controlled media, publishing is included which has turned its back on Solzynetsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together,” which is now being translated and published locally through private American donations.

It tells the story of the Jew dominated Bolsheviks and the Cheka which Jewery would just as soon not have White Americans reminded of because we might see parallels of the Jew dominated Bolshevik revolution then and what is happening in America today — but under the potential flag of a New World Order.

So – it’s a Race War (against the tribalists) + a Class War (against our elites). The one-two punch. Forgive me if I am feeling a bit blue. And don’t forget, we are experiencing biological degeneration, too. You know, poor living habits, mostly voluntary, resulting in poor health resulting in inferior children.

I’ll receive with gratitude any sincere advice, but all I think I’m really going to get is, “M’am, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Apart from a few egregious cases like Bush Jr’s attack on Iraq which was a clear case of manipulation by Jewish interests, I tend to agree with Mearsheimer – internal political systems are irrelevant. States are black boxes which decide for war according to the dictates of realism while any moralizing rationales which come subsequently are just spin. The Civil war is not an example of war fought for moral reasons, because a Northern based US would be a much weaker state – armed force was always going to be the realist answer to Southern secession and the South was too weak to deter that.

This post makes the current situation seem rather inevitable in the long run, it makes me wonder whether Jews have really altered the ultimate destination or or just speeded things up. Given that perfervid WASP idealism dominated the the western world how could things have ended up any differently ?

I am not really into religion. And I do not see Jews as an uncontested elite even though their power is out of all proportion to their numbers.

AIPAC and similar outfits are powerful and can do a lot of damage. However, they cannot keep, for example, fighter jets from being sold to Saudi Arabia. The military-industrial complex, oil industry, and others have much power.

Dr. MacDonald, you are bass-ackwards on this one, as with most of your WND-slanted posts on economics.

DiLorenzo (Jesuit) is part of a disingenuous 3-pronged attack on Lincoln. He claims Lincoln was a tyrant. Lewis Lehrman (Jew, Ron Paul collaborator, president of anti-union Rite Aid) celebrates “Lincoln the abolitionist” with weak, cartoonish arguments. Harry Jaffa (Jew, neocon) sees Lincoln through the eyes of Leo Strauss as a noble tyrant.

Don’t pick sides in this false debate, but see Lincoln through the eyes of his own speeches, acts, and those of his collaborators and mentors. Read “The Harmony of Interests,” by Lincoln’s chief economic advisor, Henry C. Carey (even just the preface) to see why the Civil War was necessary.

Where was the tyranny – with Lincoln; who distributed free land to thousands of European immigrants with the homestead act, who built transcontinental railroads, bridges, locks and dams with debt free currency, who ushered in a wave of bottom-up prosperity in which the post-war South was to be included without condition? Or the Rothschild-funded confederacy, run by British Israel agenteur like Albert Pike and Judah Benjamin, who seceded from the union before Lincoln took office and set their sites on Mexico, the Caribbean and the US’ western territories to expand the British slave empire?

It is true that Lincoln’s chief goal was to preserve the Union, and not to emancipate the slaves. How does this prove anything, and how does this offer moral superiority to slave owners?

Anti-Lincolnism and Anti-New Deal-ism are the worst types of revisionist history. If anything, these were the two most “Catholic” leaders in our nation’s history, if Catholic economics means anything to today’s “Catholic” traditionalists. Free trade and “small government” are not in the Constitution, nor in our “white interest”, despite what cheap hucksters like DiLorenzo say.

@Phil: What you haven’t internalized is that now, as KM makes clear, the American elite ARE the Jews (read Zionists and Neocons as the bottom line.)

In this new culture *war* with the Jews, it makes little difference what Christian denomination one hails from, as long as, a. it’s not now pro Zionist, and b. one feels at ease about advertising oneself as a Christian, even if one wasn’t before.

If enough American European derived Gentiles wore a little cross on the chest, that in itself would start to overwhelm the elite Jew minority among us.

As a descendant myself of Richard Treat, I would acknowledge Puritans have a tendency to go off the deep end. However, it seems to me that the activist types in the mainline Protestant denominations underwent the shift to strong multicultural advocacy, as a new moral crusade, during the turmoil and anger of the 1960s. Historically, Puritans had not exactly been known for tolerance. They were known for persecuting dissenters.

Regarding the neo-conservatives, I think they have worked hard to try to fold Israel’s interests (while playing down the contradictions) into the larger American elite’s interests. High amongst the latter’s interests is domination of the Middle East’s oil supply.

Good to have you on board. (But I don’t know yet what kind of board it is that we might be having.)

The more likely fella to lead the way is Br. Nathanael, rather than yours truely.

See his fairly new blog and video clip, *Breaking Zionist Power*. In that, the proposal for legal action is put forth by “Undo Compromise”. Followed by other comments by other postors, Father Joseph, etc. (For me, the jury is still out on Fr. Joseph.)

Judging by your past trenchant insights, it would be most interesting to hear your take on this to see if there is any potential there.

Charles Krauthammer? To hell with what he stands for. So a policy is traceable to J. Q. Adams? So what!

Someone suggested stop ALL immigration now. That’s the best idea yet. (And we don’t have to give up territory for that.)

It’s BS that the Mexicans take the jobs the whites won’t do. High school age whites will take these jobs gladly, and as they get to be seniors, their skill levels go up. I hire these white young men and they do better jobs than Mexicans in a variety of work in the landscape and construction trades. The Mexicans are now getting cheeky and lazy and do noticeably inferior work. And they will not acculturate. To hell with multiculturalism. I want to continue to live in a White, Christian, European fathered homeland.

It’s the Jews that pushed for liberal immigration quotas. Obama and the rest really don’t want secure borders. But my State, Arizona’s Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement to check nationality in accord with federal law, is being fought by Obama, although a dozen other states want to pass laws like 1070.

We have to get our Country back from the Jews. Let’s first sue AIPAC to make it be registered as representing a foreign power. I will be among the first to contribute if a legal fund is established.

What is politics but low-intensity warfare? In war and peace underclass kinsmen are sacrificed by the white elite so that it may ally with or conquer out-groups to obtain/maintain wealth and power. This has been the practice since history was written and probably long before the ice age ended. Ironic that we children of fornicating princes and conquering rapists find ourselves in the lowest of the low – the white underclass. If no goy is worth a fingernail paring to a jew, then what does that say about an elite which sells its underclass to those devils? This question is something white nationalism cannot come to grips with in an honest fashion.

Nietzsche tried to save us with his re-evaluation of the values of the Judeo-Christian world. Isn’t time that we really get our heads around this idea before we are lost for good.

W. E. Woodward writes of Lincoln: Unquestionably his personality is difficult to understand. He was not dominated by his capacity for cheerful frankness, by any means. There was something extremely shrewd and subtle about him. That statement does not mean to imply that he was a hypocrite, which he was certainly not. He was entirely sincere and entirely honest, but his sincerity expressed itself in subtle maneuvers. He was like a pair of Siamese twins, each of whom has a totally different set of abilities. One twin can change the color of a card before your very eyes while the other one has the gawky look of a country bumpkin who has come to see the wonders of a county fair. Yet both twins have the same blood stream and are really one person. pg.508 A NEW AMERICAN HISTORY

Honesty about our forefathers is essential, but to the extent it is done to demoralize us, I resent it.

In his book “Surprise, Security, and the American Experience,” John Lewis Gaddis traced the “Bush” Doctrine back to John Quincy Adams. Adams wanted to create an American Global Empire. You should consult Gaddis’ book if want a better understanding of the deeply American aspects of Krauthammer’s “Democratic Realism.”

“One wonders, would humans have ever developed morality at all, any more than dogs or chimpanzees could be said to have morality, if it were not so useful as a weapon in their struggles with other humans? It appears to be a supreme irony that the absolutely amoral Darwinian struggle of nature, so red in tooth and claw, is what gives rise to all human morality. All the way up to Calvary and back, it’s nothing but a fraud!”

What a fantastic piece of writing. What talent. Have you thought about submitting an original article to TOO? Please, more!

The current popular moral paradigm of our age requires the con and the mark; the jew as con benefits from us, the mark, believing in his egalitarian, utopian hocus-pocus, with severe Darwinian consequences. Embracing our competitor’s particularist alien morality is like nursing an asp to the West’s collective bosom. It is a weapon. Morality as warfare is bang on, point well taken, not to mention in addition to homo sapien’s ability to lie and self-deceive. Morality as warfare is obviously as consistent with Natural Law as Might makes Right.

Severus said:

“If whites punish whites with such rigor, and seem to wanna self-destruct no matter what we do, then is this not an indication that whites are “defective” from a biological/genetic standpoint? If any other race did this we’d say, “to h*ll with ‘em…they are not meant to survive.”

“Is there any other way to interpret this? I mean if white-skinned peoples cannot handle attacks coming their way, etc. then they are not very “fit” are they?”

Severus, European traits such as rugged individualism, high-investment parenting, and a propensity for out-group altruism, to name just a few, served us pretty well as we conquered Ice Age Europe, then the world itself, wouldn’t you agree? They are not ‘defective’ nor ‘self-destructive’, nor even ‘unfit’, as you claim. If they were, we would have gone softly into the night eons ago. The problem, simply stated, is that we are failing to ADAPT to the current socio-environmental circumstances to which we have quite suddenly found ourselves. And just how we are going to collectively adapt is the million-dollar question. But then, you would know this had you read CofC, which perhaps is what you should be doing instead of literally living on this blog and making countless eyes roll as the new incarnation of Appollonian, or the Mighty App (may he rest his pen in peace).

Comment to both Severus, who is looking for some positive ideas, and at the same time a comment to MacDonald’s article. The article is certainly getting at something important, even if it seems it can be expressed in different ways

What if that important thing is a part of some whole. And maybe that whole is one of the positive survival tools built into the psyche of our people.

Well, I’m going out on a limb here. But maybe our people are pretty capable of being whipped up into a frenzy for any new idea – newness newness. Willing and capable to “selflessly” turn on themselves as part of charging ahead with the newness. Mercilessly smash all kinds of things in themselves among themselves, as part of this latest newness that has taken root. Such a phenomenon could be a remarkably powerful advancing evolutionary device that would create a very aggressive, changing, advancing people, with subgroups of them being constantly sacrificed.

I’m not a completely disinterested party, and this is where my comment turns to Severus’ question about what we can do in our current situation. We need to come up with some grabbing newness. Two days ago I posted a comment in Occidental Dissent, which had a lot of newness and excitement, at least that is how I felt. A real breaking out of the old pro-White movement into a huge new one (newness of value). It was a long rambling comment and if anyone is interested I can attempt to explain parts of it, some parts of it indirectly. The basic idea is: are pro-Whites too Puritan and are they thus separating themselves from the rest of the world. The newness is to jump out of the specific current Puritan type of approach. It’s a pretty dense rambling post, ending with some references to 4th generation nation states, but the post has much more than that, and much concrete and with big feeling issues. Don’t assume the post is all understandable, but if there are some questions, I can attempt to answer them.http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/07/20/youre-a-racist-what-to-do-when-you-are-smeared/comment-page-1/#comment-68391

“Charles Krauthammer is a perfect example of an American Jewish intellectual who cynically exploits the tendency among Whites for moral idealism and universalism in order to advance his narrow ethnic intererts.”

Krauthammer is following in the well-worn tracks of Walter Lippman and Edward Bernays here. War propaganda previous to WWI was more art than science. But it was with WWI and the Creel Committee (aka the Committee on Public Information, that deliberate, elite shaping of public opinion in order to manufacture consent to its aims came into its own. Using the Creel Committee, and under the advice and guidance of Jews Lippman and Bernays, the Wilson administration was able to make public opinion turn 180 degrees in a matter of months. It was a remarkable effort that was able to muster tremendous support among American Whites for a war against their own European racial center, a war they had previously been dead set against. Wilson, elected on a promise to keep America out of the conflict, immediately set about trying to find a way into it.

“Beyond interest. Beyond power. Beyond interest defined as power. …” Krauthammer is here recycling almost the identical justifications used by the Wilson administration to justify its power grab. WWI was sold to the American public in part as the War to End All Wars, a moral crusade, a War in which the US had no vital interest at stake. Having nothing to gain from going to war became, absurdly, yet one more reason to go to war. Of course, the supposition that there was no material reason to go to war was a ridiculous lie. But in the surreal world of war propaganda, such big lies are an indispensible part of the technique, and here it was successfully applied. The public was convinced, consent was manufactured, and as a result the US elites increased their wealth and power enormously both during and after the War, just as they are now doing in their “War Against Terror”, and in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

One wonders, would humans have ever developed morality at all, any more than dogs or chimpanzees could be said to have morality, if it were not so useful as a weapon in their struggles with other humans? It appears to be a supreme irony that the absolutely amoral Darwinian struggle of nature, so red in tooth and claw, is what gives rise to all human morality. All the way up to Calvary and back, it’s nothing but a fraud!

@ adminWhites punish Whites who are politically incorrect they may gain a great deal personally.

One can readily see this when White activists are before all-white juries. They ALWAYS convict, they ALWAYS vote death or whatever harshest penalty is available. Now THAT is the sickness of the soulless.

A mega Bingo on this article, Kevin. The Anglo/White psyche is infected with a lot of self-destructive pathologies, and you have hit upon several of them here. The real problem that we face in the Darwinian struggle for ethnic survival, is straight forward Pogoesque. It’s our own damned racial foibles. It is really good that you have seen fit to investigate some of these debilities.

The average Anglo mindset is infected with many corrupting fantasies, superstitions and delusions. Puritanism and its Neo-Puritan offshoots like abolitionism, egalitarianism, race denial, liberalism, and so forth, are just some of them. The concept of “moral superiority” and an over blown sense of “honor” play a large part in abstract White “proposition” illusions as well. The Romans were dumbstruck that Germanic captives felt honor bound to accept their enslavement! It’s no wonder that the White-Western population is so enmeshed in such debilitating, aracial, nihilistic, and ultimately suicidal behavior. It’s most likely baked into our DNA, and is culturally and ideologically reinforced constantly.

‘Altruistic’ punishment against fellow Whites is, to my mind, essentially a moral rationalization for self-centered Anglo/White misdeeds of the moment. This (mis) behavior, unfortunately, has deep roots in Northern Europe, is likely tribal in derivation, and probably evolved during the Neolithic/Proto Indo-European time on the Pontic Steppes, if not much earlier. This was a time of ethic expansion and conquest, and every bloody advance had to be intellectually justified, to one degree or another. The claim that “They started it” is a classic historical example of such retributive behavior against asset rich neighbors or perceived competitors.

@ Der weiße Engel: I think that it’s not just White elites that have these attitudes. They pervade the university, for example, and it even seems to apply to tea partiers who are terrified of being called racist. Whites are terrified to think they have a moral taint, and doubtless a lot of Whites felt moral uplift by voting for Obama. But I agree that altruism is probably not a good word here. It’s used in the research literature on punishment to non-cooperators in groups, but the reality is that when Whites punish Whites who are politically incorrect they may gain a great deal personally. It’s really a sort of raw individualism because Whites as a racial group who suffer ultimately. Kevin M

I agree with you. The whole Protestant mainline has theologically disintegrated over the past century or so. The concepts of truth of Scripture, a living God, and inherent human depravity have vanished in favor of a quasi-gnostic faith in redemption through ideological purity.

Without the ties to a serious theological tradition, religious fervor is easily shaped by ideological currents. This is why totalitarian states are typically so hostile to orthodox religion.

Strict Calvinism is a very intellectually difficult theology, and I think it is particularly vulnerable to decadence when the core ideas like predestination and total human depravity are muddied over.

Oh. I think we will see the Spirit of Revival sweep the land. It will be based on the basics of Protestantism that have been forgotten even by the Protestant clergy & theologians.

The three keys of the Protestant Reformation.

1) Justification by faith, or as it is known, salvation by faith alone.

2) The priesthood of all believers, or everyman his own priest.

3) Sola Scriptura, or scripture alone has the authority to determine Christian beliefs. With emphasis on The New Testament.

It will be interesting to see who preaches this revival. It will definitely shake up the Roman Catholics & the Jews when it happens. It will also shakeup the episcopal types who owe their jobs to a heirarchy.

I find the big three radio blabbermouths insufferable. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are transparent frontmen for the Republican party, purveyors of neocon poison, and are major players in the White Death Cult. I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in years. On the increasingly rare occasions when I listen to Hannity’s show I usually have to turn it off abruptly as he is prone to engage in protracted jive talk with so many flubber-lipped coons it’s painful. If you had to judge only by his show, you’d often get the impression that the country must be at least 50% black. I assume this is part of the big Republican push to raise its share of the arboreal American vote from 2% to 2.1%; it’s part of Karl Rove’s operation “Outreach”. Yeah, good luck with that. Beck — “the professor”, as is he is styled by Michael Savage — does make an ineffectual attempt to be a bit intellectual, but listening to his hate-filled diatribes against racism, and hearing him grovel before the image of that woman-beating coward “Dr.” Martin Luther King day after day, gets old in a hurry. It’s a measure of how far left America has become when a guy like Beck is considered extreme right wing.

Re: altruistic punishment

Dr. MacDonald again recurs to his idea that America’s ongoing devolution into a multiracial, multicultural nightmare is, to no small degree, the result of “altruistic punishment”. It is his view that Whites, at Jewish instigation, are destroying their culture, and themselves, because they have been convinced by the Jews of their own moral deficiencies. It is questionable exactly how “altruistic” this punishment is, however. It could be properly characterized as altruism if the White elites themselves, who are carrying it out, ceded power to groups that they believed that they themselves had wronged. However, although one might point to an occasional instance of this, mostly that isn’t what happens. Typically, the punishment isn’t altruistic at all, because not only doesn’t it cost them anything, it often enriches them – at least in the short term. Nor do they indict themselves as morally deficient and punish themselves, but rather, other members of their race. Indeed, they don’t see themselves as morally deficient at all, but as morally superior to these others. They are, if anything, remarkable for their egotism in this regard. These White elites themselves also, by a shocking coincidence, invariably have always stood much to gain in wealth and power by erupting in these periodic moral crusades. Examples: Reconstruction, American involvement in WWI and WWII, the current imperial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Therefore, I reject the use of the descriptor “altruism” for this behavior. Altruism connotes self-sacrifice for the common good, but this sort of thing isn’t altruism at all. It’s just intra-racial aggression which uses morality as a pretext.

If you haven’t done so already, I recommend that you read John Jakes’ North and South book trilogy. Very few of us have any awareness of the attitudes that prevailed during the run-up to the American Civil War. Jakes does a masterful job in bringing us characters who epitomized the different mind-sets of that era. It is a very easy read and you won’t be able to put the book down once you start.

I have always been fascinated at how the same race of people could war on each other with such ferocity. This is not the first time that the germanic races have engaged in an internicine blood lust. The “30 Years War” (1618-1638) resulted in the death of between 1/3 and 2/3rds of the Germans over a religious dispute between idiotic semitic religions.

The whites who share the pathology of the WASPs are usually upper middle -class the something – probably what lets them achieve economic success – means they lack the common man’s emotional reaction to ethnic displacement. At the elite level a high IQ is harnessed to guilt, conscientiousness, or passiveness but rarely instinctive racial awareness.

How then do you explain Spanish Catholic liberalism vis-a-vis the human sacrificing, child-eating Mesoamericans, in the age of Bartolome de las Casas and the School of Salamanca? Some like de las Casa were of converso descent, however, it appears that neither Puritan millennialism nor Judaic moral superiority was their driving force. Also how do you explain the strong Southern support for the declaration of moral war by Westminster upon Berlin? Charles Lindbergh and America Firsters were, for all intents and purposes, shunned by the South. It was Southern senators who made FDR’s Lend-Lease program viable. Was this also the work of neo-cons or Puritan millenialists?

A distinction should be made between the actual Puritans of the colonial era, who believed in old fashioned Calvinism, and their liberal Protestant descendants.

The actual Puritans were more than willing to defend themselves, for instance in King Philip’s war or the wars against France.

Old stock New Englanders lost the moral ability to defend the interests of their own people only in subsequent years, as the old religion died out and was replaced by Unitarianism and Transcendentalism among the New England elite.

English abolitionists like Wilberforce, who believed in Biblical Christianity, had the moral ability to advocate for Blacks without hating their own people. This ability was lacking among the Transcendentalist abolitionists of America.